Ethical question about a convicted paedophile.

herya · 23-08-2009 03:22PM

Look at it another way, at least you know who he is and if you decide to let him live there the neighbours will know too so they can take precautions.

If you make him go elsewhere and another landlord rents a place to him without a background check (most probably don't do such detailed checks) he will be living next to totally unsuspecting families. I don't think you can find a house with no families around at all. Actually the risk of potential reoffending will be bigger as people won't be wary of him.

For your neighbours perhaps it's better to know for sure that a (former) offender is nearby than to live in a cuckoo land - I'm sure there are active paedophiles and rapists living in your estate already, the only difference being that they have not been caught.

galwayrush · 23-08-2009 03:23PM

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

I'd prefer if he didn't live .:mad:

Ickle Magoo · 23-08-2009 03:24PM

Legally, landlords cannot discriminate against any of the nine protected groups under the Equal Status Act 2000...

From

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#parti-sec3

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the “marital status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

They are perfectly entitled to deny tenancy on the grounds of prior convictions or that they are in receipt of benefits & so on. That said, it's very difficult for a prospective tenant to prove they are being discriminated against for those reasons.

Ickle Magoo · 23-08-2009 03:26PM

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

The question wasn't where I expect convicted paedophiles to live, it was whether the OP should let him rent his house in the knowledge that his tenant was a convicted paedophile & his children have neighbours. Me, I'd like convicted paedophiles to live in jail/secure accomodation.

MagicMarker · 23-08-2009 03:26PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Legally, landlords cannot discriminate against any of the nine protected groups under the Equal Status Act 2000...

From

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#parti-sec3

They are perfectly entitled to deny tenancy on the grounds of prior convictions or that they are in receipt of benefits & so on. That said, it's very difficult for a prospective tenant to prove they are being discriminated against for those reasons.

Even if they can prove they are being discriminated against, they can be prosecuted/charged whatever, but they can't forcefully be made rent out their own property to someone.

TPD · 23-08-2009 03:27PM

I wouldn't, OP. I know he's served his time etc, but I couldn't live with myself if he did reoffend and did something to my neighbours kids. Not worth the risk, because you can never be 100% sure that he is rehabilitated properly.

Sucks to be him, not being able to get a house as easily as somebody else might have, but that is the stigma that comes with the crime he committed.

Abi · 23-08-2009 03:33PM

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

Not in an estate with young families is a good start. If it was me I'd probably go looking for an apartment in a complex in town that seems to have mostly working professionals in it.

And another thing, he should have mentioned the fact to the OP before the agreement. That was a sneaky move on his part if you ask me. And if its because he is having difficulty finding accomodation for previously being honest about it, well tough tits.

herya · 23-08-2009 03:40PM

Re: living in town, actually it's the other way round, I used to live in town now living in a "family" estate - there were loads more kids around in town.

In town they were playing around the buildings, in the backyards, in the hallways, walking up and down the street to get sweets from the newsagents. Probably due to space constraints in the apartments, and it was a "professional" area. If I wanted to snatch a child or drag it into a back lane I'd have no problems at all.

Where I live now - in a family area - there are probably much more children per capita but you don't see them around nearly as much only hear them, they are all playing at home or in their back gardens.

Jay P · 23-08-2009 03:41PM

dvpower wrote: »

To people who voted No (myself included); where would you expect this guy to live?

Not our problem, it's his problem. I wouldn't rent to him even if there weren't kids living on either side, I just wouldn't feel comfortable about it. In fact, I'd be totally fraked out by it.

23-08-2009 03:41PM

You will make your neighbours feel unsafe in their homes. Is that what you want?

He doesn't need to even do anything, the fact that he even might be thinking of these poor children in an obscene way is enough to say no no no.

brownbinman · 23-08-2009 03:43PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Continuing to punish a man that society has deemed to have served his sentence or withholding information that could result in a child being abused.

They should always be punished for abusing a child.There is no excuse

Sneakee · 23-08-2009 03:44PM

The prospective tenant in question is silly enough to choose a property close to children which will always put temptation there for him, reformed or not.
I would say no to him in this case. If it was a house in the countryside where there was no families close by, I would maybe consider it. As there are families with children on either side of the property in close proximity, that would sound alarm bells for me.
If I was in that prospective tenants position and wanting to truly reform, I would keep well away from anything related to the crime in the first place. For me, stay away from schools,creches, playgrounds and families with kids.
OP, I'd say trust your gut on this one, and maybe talk to a local Garda as well if you still consider taking him.
It's a toughie, and you are prob desperate for tenants as well in this economic climate.

galwayrush · 23-08-2009 03:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You will make your neighbours feel unsafe in their homes. Is that what you want?

He doesn't need to even do anything, the fact that he even might be thinking of these poor children in an obscene way is enough to say no no no.

Agree, and OP, You know that kids live beside your house, you know what he is, why not let an ex alcoholic stay there and leave plenty of bottles of booze lying around.:rolleyes:

herya · 23-08-2009 03:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You will make your neighbours feel unsafe in their homes. Is that what you want?

I'd find this type of naivety disarming if it wasn't so dangerous.

They should feel unsafe already because there are paedophiles and rapists around and loads of them, including all those nice fathers, uncles and neighbours from the estate who go out to work and pay for their homes, then return to molest each others kids or to rape their neighbours daughter on a night out.

It's this type of thinking - that kids should be scared of strangers only - that puts them at risk once uncle Kevin next door wants to go play Wii with them.

Ickle Magoo · 23-08-2009 03:48PM

brownbinman wrote: »

They should always be punished for abusing a child.There is no excuse

That wasn't what I said. Read the post again. The two points are in relation to a question of ethics for the OP not in relation to each other.

23-08-2009 03:51PM

herya wrote: »

I'd find this type of naivety disarming if it wasn't so dangerous.

They should feel unsafe already because there are paedophiles and rapists around and loads of them, including all those nice fathers, uncles and neighbours from the estate who go out to work and pay for their homes, then return to molest each others kids or to rape their neighbours daughter on a night out.

It's this type of thinking - that kids should be scared of strangers only - that puts them at risk once uncle Kevin next door wants to go play Wii with them.

Well I think scaremongering is no help to anyone but if there is a convicted paedophile living next door to me I'm alot less likely to let my child out to play.

I'm sorry but your idea of society is f*cked up.

Abi · 23-08-2009 03:52PM

Surgical castration ftw. How the hell else would a parent be happy with a paedo living next door??

"Forgiveness" my arse.

AckwelFoley · 23-08-2009 03:53PM

Sneakee wrote: »

The prospective tenant in question is silly enough to choose a property close to children which will always put temptation there for him, reformed or not.

OP, I'd say trust your gut on this one, and maybe talk to a local Garda as well if you still consider taking him.
It's a toughie, and you are prob desperate for tenants as well in this economic climate.

Its not overtly apparent that there are young families either side of the property. So i wouldnt think, thats his motive.

Ironically ive had quite a number of enquiries. Ive shown it to 2 and could have shown it to alot more, but tbh, i was so sickened by the second guy the paedo, i didnt show it to anyone else. The frst gut is a known headcase junkie. Its a decent apartment / flat, but in an attempt to find a good tennant i advertised it at a very low price... it seems to have dragged "them" all out of the woodwork.

Carsinian Thau · 23-08-2009 03:55PM

OP, this is a terrible position to find yourself in.

He's served his time and it may look like you're continuing to punish him if you refuse to let him live there.

But any parents in the area will be utterly terrified if you let him move in. It doesn't matter to them that he's reformed. They will still be afraid. It's not really fair on them.

As another poster suggested, perhaps he ought to live elsewhere, somewhere where there aren't that many (preferably none) children.

Both of your choices here involve you doing something wrong. You can either punish a man who's already served his time or punish your neighbours by forcing them to live in fear. And make yourself live in fear too of what your new tenant has the potential to you.

In the long run, it'll be easier to live with the consequences of refusing to let him live there.

To avoid any legal ramifications, could you take the property off the market (for like a month or thereabouts) , tell him you simply changed your mind about renting it and then put it up for rent again later?

herya · 23-08-2009 03:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry but your idea of society is f*cked up.

It's not my idea, it's the society. Of course you can ignore the fatcs, at your peril.

Some stats from an RTE programme with child abuse experts:

Some horrendous statistics on child abuse - 10% of women and 3% of men admit to having been sexually abused. 6% as girls, 6% as adult women.

They say that child rapists are 20% family members, 20% neighbours, 20% figures of authority (teachers etc), 20% strangers (where's the last 20%?). In adults 40% are strangers.

My name is URL · 23-08-2009 03:59PM

Abigayle wrote: »

Surgical castration ftw. How the hell else would a parent be happy with a paedo living next door??

"Forgiveness" my arse.

That's like cutting off a thief's arms. He'll still be a thief though

Why the fcuk are these people released and expected to reintegrate with society when the chances of re-offending are so high?

CrazyRabbit · 23-08-2009 04:00PM

phasers wrote: »

Children live nearby. No way in hell.

There isn't a part of the country where there are no children 'nearby'.

This sex offender's risk of reoffending doesn't increase/decrease depending on where they live. Children will always be within walking/driving distance no matter where he is.

Things to consider:
1. Has he shown remorse for his actions?
2. Has he, or is he receiving treatment from either the Lighthouse Centre or Granada institute?
3. Does he have the support of his family and/or friends?
4. Do you live on/near the property as well?
5. Does he have a reliable job/income?
6. Is he receiving assistance from the Probation Service?

As someone who has studied treatment methods for sex offenders, I can tell you that it's not as clear cut as many people would think. Some offenders are at a very high risk of committing another offense. Others pose practically no risk. The answers to the 6 questions I mentioned above will help you determine the level of risk.

One of the most effective methods of preventing reoffending is to give the person every reason NOT to do so. If you take their friends/job/family etc away from them, then they have nothing to lose...they have little reason to be lawful.

My advice thus is: Check if he has had or is getting treatment and speak with him about your concerns. Keep a close eye on him, and warn him that he is not to interact with any child.

Would you rather he lived where you can keep an eye on him, or have him live somewhere else where nobody knows his background?

galwayrush · 23-08-2009 04:02PM

My name is URL wrote: »

That's like cutting off a thief's arms. He'll still be a thief though

Why the fcuk are these people released and expected to reintegrate with society when the chances of re-offending are so high?

Because our legal system is very ****ed up in some ways. That Barry bastard in Galway who murdered the Swiss student was only on the streets because some stupid judge decided he should be released from custody despite objections from the Gardai after he raped a French girl and was clearly a threat to other women at the time.

Ickle Magoo · 23-08-2009 04:03PM

herya wrote: »

It's not my idea, it's the society. Of course you can ignore the fatcs, at your peril.

Some stats from an RTE programme with child abuse experts:

Surely there is a distinction between renting to someone & accepting the potential they have to be a paedophile and knowing they are and renting it to them anyway?

I agree with your sentiments - it's terrifying but the statistics show that by far the majority of paedophiles are unwittingly invited into the family home by the parents.

23-08-2009 04:03PM

herya wrote: »

It's not my idea, it's the society. Of course you can ignore the fatcs, at your peril.

Some stats from an RTE programme with child abuse experts:

Obviously this guy is someones relative and about to be someone's neighbour. I'm not ignoring facts at all. This guy could fall into any of those categories. There are statistics for everything and you could live your life in sheer terror if you allowed yourself.

This guy has been convicted and he is a registered sex offender therefore the simple fact is that you will feel more unsafe living beside someone like this.

edit: I might also add the 'statistics' are a little bit too tidy and even to be accurate.

galwayrush · 23-08-2009 04:08PM

OP, you have asked the audience and the verdict is over 87% saying no.
If it was my street, i would not accept a known kiddie fiddler live here, i could see me and other neighbours burn the bastard out even if he owned the house.
You know he is a sick pervert, don't dump him knowingly on the other people on the street.

23-08-2009 04:09PM

now I realise I'm taking things a little too far here OP but here's a hypothetical situation for you.

This guy befriends the neighbours, one of the kids comes into your apartment, and he abuses this child, your apartment is now crime scene, you will have a serious amount of trouble renting it to anyone else and the value of your property just dropped.

I know it may be a little far fetched but it's just something to think about.

renraw · 23-08-2009 04:09PM

Rebelheart wrote: »

Would you have statistics to support this "always" claim?

I'm for giving people second chances but paedos are a different story. They are an incurable disease and no, I don't have stats to further the claim but know from personal experience of people who were abused repeatedly, even when the scumbags get out of jail. Jail is too good for them...I'd castrate them

Nodin · 23-08-2009 04:10PM

invalidusername wrote: »

My question is, as he now is a free man in the eyes of the law do i rent him the property or do i go with my gut feeling and not rent the place to him..

I wouldn't. I'm all for giving second chances but there's somethings I couldn't live with. It would be different if all the neighbours were informed.

My name is URL · 23-08-2009 04:10PM

galwayrush wrote: »

Because our legal system is very ****ed up in some ways. That Barry bastard in Galway who murdered the Swiss student was only on the streets because some stupid judge decided he should be released from custody despite objections from the Gardai after he raped a French girl and was clearly a threat to other women at the time.

That pisses me off to no end. Is it just easier to deal with heinous crime when it happens rather than take measures to prevent it from happening in the first place?

The law really is an ass

Ethical question about a convicted paedophile.

Comments